A friend sent me a quotation culled from Mark Steyn’s Statement to the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness of the United States Senate:
In response [to the public’s increased doubts about anthropogenic climate change], federal bodies such as NOAA and NASA have adjusted the past to make the present appear hotter, and thus supposedly demonstrated that in fact there is no such “pause.” As a result, public opinion, which no longer trusts the Big Climate enforcers to tell them what the climate will be like in 2050, now no longer trusts them to tell them what it was like in 1950.
Reading that, I had two thoughts pop into my head, one immediately on the heels of the other. The first thought, of course, was that as a factual matter, Steyn is absolutely right: Climate science, which was flawed to begin with, has now abandoned naive mistakes in favor of pure corruption. It started with computer programs that only a naif or a fool would believe could calculate all of the climate’s moving parts with sufficient accuracy to predict climate a year in advance, let alone decades or centuries. It’s reaching an end (a very expensive end) with out-and-out data falsification intended to cover-up the consistently failed predictions that the inevitably flawed computer programs generated.
The legal aphorism that’s drilled into each young attorney is “If you have the law, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither facts nor law, pound the table.” In the wake of the damage climate “science” has done to the scientific method, the scientific aphorism for each new B.S. (an acronym that takes on new meaning in today’s intellectual climate) has become “If you have the theory, argue the theory; if you have the data, argue the data; if you only theory and no data, corrupt the entire scientific record and brutally censor those who challenge your theory.”
The second thought that struck me when I read those words was “Wow. His writing is like the best of Tin Pan Alley and the Great American Songbook.”